The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[Bangkilan]

Theistless here are dancing around the arguments as posted

They love to play semantics game LOL haha nice escape.!

[orcgod]

pun an pa nako oh:



Diamonds were formed billions of years ago under intense heat and pressure existing at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 120 mi) in the Earth's mantle. The correct combination of temperature and pressure is only found in the thick, ancient, and stable parts of continental plates where regions of lithosphere known as cratons exist. Brought to the Earth's surface through deep volcanic eruptions which act as an elevator, diamonds are carried to the surface of the earth within the magma, which cools into igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites.

Every natural diamond is immensely old, formed long before dinosaurs roamed the earth. The youngest diamond is 900 million years old, and the oldest is 3.2 billion years old.

unsa may naa ana nganong magpa convert man mi?

So to agree that the earth existed Billions of years, you Automatically ignore what the Bible Says. Creationist really believe that the Earth is only thousands of years, because of what they read in the Bible. let me post a video link
YouTube - Earth is 6,000 Years Old
YouTube - Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man

the man in the video is a "GOD" believer. So any of you who believes in GOD, and at the same believes the Earth is Billions of years is confusing themselves.

Because in the first place, how did you learn that there is a GOD? diba sa BIBLE, or Parents nimo nga mak DIYOS, or PARI?

[redhorse1L]

I suppose you know what Theistic Evolution means. That means you accept that Evolution happened but that it happened as part of God's design.

If that's the case, then I have no disagreement with you on that regard (except that, on my part, I have to apply Occam's razor). In fact, I admire the Roman Catholic scientist, Ken Miller, who took up the case for Evolution in the Dover trial. If you are anything like Ken Miller, then two thumbs up for you too!



You may think that I'm anti-religion, but I'm not. You may even think it's unbecoming of me to say what I'm about to say...which would be conciliatory in tone.

I respect what you said above. There are large areas of inquiry where science is able to give the best answers. However, I also think that science is not the only way, nor always the best way, to gain an understanding of the world. Religion (at its best) and philosophy (at its best)--I think--help us deal with questions about the meaning of life without the need for experimentation or mathematics (although in my case, philosophy works very well independently). Art, music, and literature as well provide us with aesthetic knowledge. I think these different ways of knowing can complement each other for most people.

Agree?




So, you don't believe that God throws bolts of lightning when angry? Let's check the Bible.

Zechariah 9:14


Job 37:15


Psalm 29:7


Job 36:32


Anyway, I meant that as a joke. I hope the religious still have some sense of humor in them.



On your first question, I think I've said it before: I DON'T KNOW. If the answers are not going to come within my lifetime, I'm okay with it too.

On the rest of your questions...here's how I'd look at it. This will sound philosophical. So bear with me. On your part, I think you will agree with me that an endless chain of causes is inconceivable. On my part, I think a first cause that is uncaused is likewise inconceivable. Is there any exit from these blind alleys of thought?

According to Immanuel Kant, there is. Space, time, and cause are modes of perception which we attribute to experience....since they give structure and connections to experience (think about when you describe your experience). Likewise, we do not have any experience which is not interpreted in terms of space, time, and cause. In other words...space, time and cause are modes of interpretation and understanding for our sense experience.

Follow me so far? Okay...

Kant then went on to say that sense experiences are finite categories. Space, time, and cause can only apply to phenomena that appear to sense experiences. Therefore, we cannot apply these three conceptions to (what Kant calls) the "noumenal world" (which I think he means the world that is outside the world of phenomenon).

In short, Kant seems to be saying that cause only applies to the realm of phenomena...(unless I read him wrong. Has anyone here read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Please feel free to correct me).

So that, in a nutshell, is my answer to those questions of causation. The realm of the supernatural just cannot enter into that question.

Get my point?

That's good enough for me. At least we have something in common: The respect of each other's views(esp. on belief) and not branding each other as illogical(or like having blind faith). Though sometimes I tend to retaliate.

It doesn't mean that since I believe in God, I will discard those scientific explanations.
Like what you said: Science is not the only way, nor always the best way, to gain an understanding of the world.

Cheers to that! Pwede na ta mag-tagay redhorse aneh. hehe
Of course we will have disagreement, so, mao nay makapa-taas sa istorya.

OT: The bible passages you quoted was written around 1000BC. That's why you don't need to take it literally. Like I said:

Originally Posted by redhorse1L
Once, men believed that gods live in mount Olympus, throwing bolts of lightning or creating huge tidal waves when angry.
Surely no one would believe on that these days, right?

I haven't read a lot on Kant's noumenon so far.
But as what I've read, it is also subjected to criticisms, as it is already metaphysical.
As what I understand, in your opinion. The notion on the pre-BigBang events cannot be explained using our natural laws and reasons.
I don't know if you will have a firm stand on Kant's position. =)

[hitch22]

response to Bangkilan:

It does strike me as odd that a lot of people here seem to take the existence of the supernatural as a given, without the need for a single proof...only faulty logic assembled to sound "reasonable". And yet they think they've won the argument just because those who are skeptical about the supernatural can only say "We don't know" or "We can't disprove it".

If you want the supernatural to enter into the question of causation, then prove it first. Can we observe a supernatural occurrence? It seems like the one who's dancing around the question are those who are cock-sure about the existence of the supernatural. Well, if it's as real to you as the chair you're sitting on, then it can't be that hard to show us some proofs...right?

[robert_papalid_ece]

So to agree that the earth existed Billions of years, you Automatically ignore what the Bible Says. Creationist really believe that the Earth is only thousands of years, because of what they read in the Bible. let me post a video link
YouTube - Earth is 6,000 Years Old
YouTube - Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man

the man in the video is a "GOD" believer. So any of you who believes in GOD, and at the same believes the Earth is Billions of years is confusing themselves.

Because in the first place, how did you learn that there is a GOD? diba sa BIBLE, or Parents nimo nga mak DIYOS, or PARI?

sabat lang ko gamay bru....
dili tanang believers sa Bible ug creationists and mu-ingon nga 10,000 years old ra ang Earth bai... see below quote from Wiki:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between c. 5,700[1] and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs,[4][5] and include around 10-45% of American adults, depending on various polls.[6] Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. Those adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are contradictory to a literal interpretation of this creation myth, is misinterpreted.[7]

only those creationists who are taking the Bible literally (e.g. YEC) would tell you so... and also... this thread isn't all about the Bible na... it is all about Creation or Chance... I believe in the Bible (not literally but by spirit)... but this isn't the thread for that discussion...

so balik tah sa thread...
asa man gikan ang universe? (remind lang nako ni pirme para dili ta mawala)
[A] created by a Supreme Being who is beyond space and time (dimensions conceptualized by humans); OR
[b]CHANCE ra oi, TAGHAP ra ning tanan, CHAMBA ra jud

[orcgod]

sabat lang ko gamay bru....
dili tanang believers sa Bible ug creationists and mu-ingon nga 10,000 years old ra ang Earth bai... see below quote from Wiki:



only those creationists who are taking the Bible literally (e.g. YEC) would tell you so... and also... this thread isn't all about the Bible na... it is all about Creation or Chance... I believe in the Bible (not literally but by spirit)... but this isn't the thread for that discussion...

so balik tah sa thread...
asa man gikan ang universe? (remind lang nako ni pirme para dili ta mawala)
[A] created by a Supreme Being who is beyond space and time (dimensions conceptualized by humans); OR
[b]CHANCE ra oi, TAGHAP ra ning tanan, CHAMBA ra jud

B) by Chance,

why?

who created the Universe? you probably say its GOD? ok, so if you dont agree that the Universe is by Chance, then a GOD must have created it right?

now the argument...So if a GOD created the Universe, who created GOD? did GOD exist by CHANCE? GOD just POP out of nowhere?

[hitch22]

That's good enough for me. At least we have something in common: The respect of each other's views(esp. on belief) and not branding each other as illogical(or like having blind faith). Though sometimes I tend to retaliate.

It doesn't mean that since I believe in God, I will discard those scientific explanations.
Like what you said: Science is not the only way, nor always the best way, to gain an understanding of the world.

Cheers to that! Pwede na ta mag-tagay redhorse aneh. hehe
Of course we will have disagreement, so, mao nay makapa-taas sa istorya.

OT: The bible passages you quoted was written around 1000BC. That's why you don't need to take it literally. Like I said:


I haven't read a lot on Kant's noumenon so far.
But as what I've read, it is also subjected to criticisms, as it is already metaphysical.
As what I understand, in your opinion. The notion on the pre-BigBang events cannot be explained using our natural laws and reasons.
I don't know if you will have a firm stand on Kant's position. =)

I have to thank you for at least taking the time to read my long posts. Your arguments are quite good, actually...*cough* William Lane Craig *cough*. If somebody can make a believer out of me, I wouldn't feel bad if that was you.

Anyway, you and I are not full-time ISTORYA posters. We have calls to answer and products to move. I'll take a break from this forum for a while. Please do continue to engage with posters from our side of the fence.

Once again, thank you. I hope everyone behaves well.

[Tirong-say]

We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc. The Bible says that He has always existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.
To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next, one minute is after another. We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.
Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.
Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end... He is outside the realm of time.

Source: Where did God come from? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

[robert_papalid_ece]

B) by Chance,

why?

who created the Universe? you probably say its GOD? ok, so if you dont agree that the Universe is by Chance, then a GOD must have created it right?

now the argument...So if a GOD created the Universe, who created GOD? did GOD exist by CHANCE? GOD just POP out of nowhere?

i think natubag na ni siya nga pangutana about sa existence/origin of God... sa among team captain nga si redhorse1L sa mga earlier exchanges... and "for me"... it was acceptable... para nako lang...

samot tang dili maghuman anang pangutanaha bai... hehe...

[Bangkilan]

If you want the supernatural to enter into the question of causation, then prove it first. Can we observe a supernatural occurrence? It seems like the one who's dancing around the question are those who are cock-sure about the existence of the supernatural. Well, if it's as real to you as the chair you're sitting on, then it can't be that hard to show us some proofs...right?

If there is a material that existed before the beginning of time Was it changing?

No obviously it wasn't changing because it existed before the beginning of time.

There was no time, so there was no change. In fact there was nothing in existence

except this material which had always existed of its own nature and power, never changing.

This thing, whatever it is, is entirely and completely independent on anything else in order

for it to exist. Therefore it can never change! It's Immutable.